Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:12:22 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I know I said I would stop, but can't resist one more. To those raising the
questions about Kuhn and open-mindedness and unwillingness to accept new
ideas: all that is just a smoke screen. Since my earliest days in the field,
now nearly 30 years ago, I have consciously tried conduct field work as an
effort to prove my developing interpretations or a site wrong. I am willing
to accept being wrong about dowsing if someone presents compelling evidence
to the contrary. I haven't seen it yet, nor have I seen anyone try to
present such evidence, only anecdotes.
For those who believe in dowsing: can anyone send me/show me a site report
that documents its use and explicitly details its methodology and results?
Those who accept dowsing and its use should start doing that. When I survey
a site, I do sketch maps of shovel-test transects indicating positive and
negative results. In testing, I shoot in shovel tests with the transit or
piece plot surface artifacts as well as shoot in excavation units, trenches,
etc. Dowsers need to at least start doing that. Start using it intensively
in your work and document how it was done and its results compared to
excavations.
From what I know about dowsing for water, no controlled test has ever shown
it works. Archaeological dowsers have an obligation to demonstrate its
usefulness if they are convinced it works.
Mike Conner
===================================
Dr. Michael Conner
Assistant Director
Center for Archaeological Research
Southwest Missouri State University
901 South National Ave.
Springfield, MO 65804
Office:417-836-6531
Fax: 417-836-4772
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|